Mother is refused wine at Morrisons – in case daughter, 17, drinks it

[Hopeless Romantic]

Management consultant Jackie Slater thought she was completing a normal shopping trip to Morrisons until the checkout assistant demanded to see her ID before scanning two bottles of wine.

"I told her I was really flattered, but I was the wrong side of 50," she said. But the assistant pointed to her 17-year-old daughter, Emily, and her 18-year-old niece, Annice, who were standing at the end of the checkout chatting.

"She asked: 'Are they with you?' I said they'd come to help me carry the bags back to the car. The assistant said: 'You could be buying the wine for them. It's the policy – I have to see everyone's ID to make sure they are all over 18'."

In vain, Mrs Slater insisted that the wine was for herself and her husband, Peter. But the assistant and then the store manager refused to budge.

Nor was their decision deemed an over-enthusiastic interpretation of company rules. Morrisons' head office last week backed the store – a move that suggests new guidelines, introduced to limit access to alcohol among youngsters, could soon cause chaos if other shops follow Morrisons' lead.

"Under current licensing laws, stores are unable to sell an alcoholic product to a customer they believe could be buying for a minor or for someone who is unable to prove their age," said a spokesman for Morrisons, citing the Think 25 scheme that has been put in place by major retailers to prevent the sale of prohibited items to under-age shoppers.

Morrisons does not contest Mrs Slater's version of events. The assistant even agreed that she would have sold the wine to a mother who had younger children with her because "no one would buy wine for a 12-year-old". However she still refused to scan the wine without seeing Mrs Slater's daughter's ID – which she did not have with her.

"I was embarrassed, there was a huge queue building up and my daughter found it all excruciating," said Mrs Slater, who describes the incident as "the silliest bit of jobsworth nonsense" she had ever come across.

"It comes to something when a mother can't take her daughter shopping without being made to feel like a criminal."

Last week Asda had to apologise to Gill Power who was told that her 14-year-old son was not allowed to help her carry shopping bags containing a bottle of wine. Mrs Power was told by the cashier: "Sorry he isn't allowed to take it because he is under age."

Asda later said its staff had been "overly cautious".

Morrisons is unrepentant about its Leeds store's decision. "We take our responsibility with regard to selling alcohol very seriously." said the spokesman. "The rules are in place to protect our customers and their families, as well as local communities who, in the majority of cases, appreciate our vigilance in the sale of age-restricted products."

Mrs Slater's MP, Greg Mulholland, a health spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, said: "Whoever thinks this policy will do anything to stop antisocial drinking by kids is in cloud-cuckoo-land.

"This is simply absurd and Morrisons should be ashamed of themselves.

"We need a more mature and sensible approach to alcohol in general – and refusing a mum a bottle of wine with the weekly shop because she has her 17-year-old daughter with her is ridiculous. Morrisons need to think again and this time do so with just a little common sense."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/oct/11/morrisons-wine-ban-mother

[LeftishBrit]

1. Just daft.

[fedsron2us]

3. The daftest part being that it is perfectly legal for a 17 year old

to drink wine at home given to them by their parents or at a restaurant with a meal. The Licensing Act 2003 is a poorly constructed piece of legislation which is typical of the rubbish churned out in ever greater quantities by Parliament in recent years.

[LeftishBrit]

4. Exactly!

[Nihil]

6. Good point ...

... and one that I shall remember if Tesco ever try this idiocy with me.

Fortunately, they seem to have a far more sensible attitude to age checking.

[Hopeless Romantic]

7. You think?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/03/04/tesco-store-refuses-to-sell-wine-to-mum-incase-she-gives-it-to-daughter-115875-21169854/

[Nihil]

8. Well spotted - I'd missed that!

I'll rephrase it to "our Tesco seems to have a more sensible approach" then!

Good catch. :hi:

[fedsron2us]

2. All part of the plan to get us all carrying id cards

The supermarkets are just acting as government proxies here.

Of course, this would not be the same Morrisons that touts offers on cheap strong cider (always the under age drinkers favourite).

http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&source=hp&q=cider+morrisons&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=cider+morrisons&fp=2b5b11435ced62e0

The hypocricy of retailers and governments, who profit from the consumption of booze, while at the same time morally censoring those who imbibe it, really knows no bounds.

[T_i_B]

5. Maybe Morrisons are looking to start their own childcare services?

Since they clearly think they know how to raise kids better then their customers.

Mind you, if you want the very worst customer service with your shopping then Spar is still the place.

[fedsron2us]

9. To be fair to the retailers it is the government

that came up with this rubbish piece of legislation. Basically they are being forced to second guess whether an adult buying alcohol is then going to give it to a minor to consume in a public place. As the penalties for getting this wrong are quite severe particularly for the staff (a fine up to £5000 and a criminal conviction) it is not surprising that they err on the side of caution. As the cases are all dealt with by summary proceedings before magistrates it is not even easy to get the matter passed to the higher court on appeal. The simple truth is that it is a rubbish law. The offence should lie with whoever actually supplies the drink directly to a minor.

Of course none of this will make a blind bit of difference to the amount of public drunkeness amongst the young since most of those involved are over 18. When I was in my late teens I seem to remember that price was one of the main consideration about what and how much I drank. Here again the government is highly culpable since UK legislation over the years has made spirits and strong cider cheaper in relation to beer. In fact the lighter ales and lagers (alcohol vol 3-4%) which were so much a part of my youth seem to have vanished forever. Trends in wine have also changed with the realitively low strength German wines of 9-10%, once popular with the British being replaced with wines from regions such as Australia at nearer 13-14% (almost in the range of sherry). The differences may not sound much in absolute terms but in relation to each other they are huge. If you up the alcoholic strength of your drink by 20% but continue to consume the same volume as before then you are going to wind up getting out of your head or damaging your liver that much more quickly.

[Hopeless Romantic]

10. Quite right, and there are literally hundreds of stupid, badly conceived laws & regulations

zealously enforced, of course, by people who should have better things to do

Another instance

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Lollipop-man-quits-over-ban.5703222.jp

[fedsron2us]

11. The Licensing Act is well worth a read if only to enjoy the law in its full magnificence

For example, it is a criminal offence to sell liqueur confectionery to children under 16. Now I happen to have a box of Elizabeth Shaw Fine Liqueur chocolates left over from last Christmas. Apart from being disgusting they are nearly all less than 3% proof. Indeed the law state that they can only contain

alcohol in a proportion not greater than 0.2 litres of alcohol (of a strength not exceeding 57%) per kilogram of the confectionery

One suspects that any miscreant teens wanting to get bladdered on these would have to consume dozens of boxes before they felt any effect. In fact the chocolate would make them puke long before the alcohol got to them. Nonetheless if you did happen to sell any of these to the wrong person you are looking at a criminal conviction and a fine up to £500.

To add to the lunacy denatured alcohol such as methylated spirits is specifically exempted from the restrictions so any who kids want to buy 'jake' to give to the serious alcoholics in the park to mix with their cider can load up with as much as they want.

BTW the comments on this case now run to 12 pages in the Guardian which suggests this particular issue has hit a bit of a nerve.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. 0.2 litres of 57% strength alcohol in a kilo of chocolate is fairly strong

That's the equivalent, roughly, of nearly a half bottle of spirits at 40% in that kilo of chocolate (0.2 * 57% = 114 ml of pure alcohol; 0.375 * 40% = .15 ml of pure alcohol). So your Elizabeth Shaw ones aren't near the maximum strength. If someone does make liqueur chocolates at the rough strength of wine, I can see why they'd want to regulate it. (Have you ever tried making jelly using vodka instead of water? You can get it pretty damn intoxicating).

The law is a bit of an ass about this, nevertheless, because all the youths need to do is not go through the checkout together.

[fedsron2us]

14. Needless to say whether one can get drunk on liqueur chocolates

has been already been discussed on the web

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080107220835AApfRqA

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080107220835AApfRqA

Having done a random check of a few other brands on sale in supermarkets I have found very few that are that much more than 5% by weight. I would also suspect that for any that are stronger you would be looking at specialist confectioners. Needless, to say my piss poor Elizabeth Shaw chocolates were the worst rated. Still can't see them being a big attraction to the kids hanging around outside ASDA

[Rosa Luxemburg]

12. what a stupid woman

[Hopeless Romantic]

15. It gets worse!

teenager was told he could not buy a packet of wine gums - because he was under 18.

Jaz Bhogal, 15, said: "The checkout assistant said they had wine in them and pointed to the word 'wine' on the packet. I couldn't believe it. I was absolutely speechless!" Jaz was told to hand back the sweets - which do not contain ANY wine - and was refunded the 99p.

His mother, Sue, 36, of Leverington, Cambs, said: "I thought Jaz was joking when he came home and told me what had happened.

"It is totally ridiculous and I would have been really cross if I had asked him to buy them for me."


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/10/23/a-packet-of-wine-dumbs-115875-21767146/

[mackerel]

16. One more excuse for kids to not help out out with the bags.